On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote: > This is different. Maybe the docs are wrong; I always intended for > both max(a, b, ...) and max(seq) to be valid. > > (BTW, perhaps the __contains__ changes should be extended to __max__ > and __min__? They share many of the same issues.) My company has an algorithm for knowing when something is risky to implement and use: when I say "hey, that's cool". If you want to follow their wisdom, you shouldn't add __max__ and __min__... My first though was "What use could that be?" and my second was "Yey! We can implement lattices *right* in Python! Cool!", but I don't see any place it's needed <0.9 wink> -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. INTERNET: Learn what you know. Share what you don't.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4